Well, most of us (including myself) are looking forward to the official election of Howard Dean to the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee. Although Terry McAuliffe has left the DNC in better shape financially, he does not deserve half the credit that he has taken for doing so. It was Howard Dean, after all, who inspired us - the netroot activists - and other grassroots activists to donate so heavily to the DNC this election. McAuliffe's skill, which was largely in raising soft money, was virtually useless once BCRA passed. Politically, let's not even think about what happened to the Democratic Party since McAuliffe became DNC chairman. We've lost 5 seats in the Senate, more in the House, and we lost by a bigger margin than we should have to President Bush. I'm not necessarily saying the electoral vote would have changed, but the disparity in the popular vote - almost 3 million - is far too big against as unpopular a president as Bush. So what makes Howard Dean different?
-Message
Dean has said that he will cede control of the Democratic message to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Many in the party were worried (wrongly) that if Dean controlled the message, the party would veer to the left. But that's not the DNC chairman's job. Instead, it is the chairman's job to be able to go on the Sunday talk shows and coherently articulate our position - something at which Dean can clearly do as a politician. McAuliffe, who was a real estate investor by trade, clearly could not hold his own on the talk shows. He usually resorted to bashing Bush and the Republicans instead of explaining why Democrats were a viable alternative. That is why we have met defeat in the 2002 midterms and the 2004 elections.
-Organization
People could point to Dean's collapse in Iowa as an example of his failure at organization. However, as the head of DFA, Dean has showed a remarkable capacity to work at the grassroots level to get Democrats elected. It's going to be the same gig at 2006, and if Dean works with the state Democratic organizations, we should see a surge of success at the state level. As the good doctor has said many times, we have to build our success from the bottom up. However, I would adopt one of Simon Rosenberg's main points - reform the way the state Democratic parties are run. As demonstrated by Mark Brewer's pathetic attempt to push Donnie Fowler ahead, the people in charge of the states are not necessarily looking out for the best interests of the party. With Dean, he has a proven record of success at DFA, whereas McAuliffe didn't do much in making sure the Democratic Party operated in the most efficient manner possible.
-Name Recognition
True, the chairmanship is not a position that is supposed to be high profile. However, the Democrats are out of power in the White House, in the Congress, and in most governorships and state legislatures. No offense to Reid (who's done a good job of cracking the whip on Democrats in the Senate) or Pelosi (who I can't say the same for, as she's had two years to get House Democrats together), but we need someone who has more charisma and more recognition. Howard Dean has this. While some of it may be from the infamous scream in Iowa, this is his chance to redeem himself and come off as a reasonable person. After all, the Democratic Party is the party of common sense, and Dean isn't afraid to speak power to the truth. As one DNC delegate put it, the only way we have to go is up. And with Dean to lead the way for the next four years, I can't wait.